The Court of Appeal ruled that a medical practitioner need not personally examine an injured person for a certificate under section 25 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 to be admissible. The certificate must relate to an examination of that person, but the law does not require the certifying practitioner to have conducted or overseen it, or to have been involved in treatment.
The court answered a question referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. The DPP asked whether a trial judge was right to exclude a section 25 certificate because the medical practitioner who prepared it had not personally performed the examination. The Court of Appeal said the judge was incorrect to exclude it on that ground.
The question arose from a February 2018 trial in Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court. A.C. faced charges of assault causing harm and assault causing serious harm over an alleged attack at a licensed premises in Dundalk on 19 June 2016. The prosecution alleged A.C. struck the injured party in the head or face with a barstool, causing a significant eye injury.
The trial judge admitted a certificate from an emergency medicine consultant at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, but excluded a certificate prepared by Professor Colm O’Brien, a consultant ophthalmic surgeon at the Mater Hospital in Dublin. Professor O’Brien had not personally seen the injured party; his report summarised ophthalmology department clinical notes from 19 and 20 June 2016. The judge considered the certificate inadmissible hearsay because the certifier had not examined the injured party. Count two, the serious-harm charge, ended in a directed verdict of not guilty.
The Court of Appeal held that section 25 requires a certificate to relate to an examination, without specifying who must perform it. It said the provision allows a certificate to provide evidence of facts certified unless the contrary is proved. The court also noted that medical care can involve multiple professionals and that the prosecution must ensure certificate evidence is readily understandable to a jury.
The court criticised the prosecution’s late service of the certificate, which was served the day before trial, calling that aspect unsatisfactory. It said certificates should be served well in advance so the defence can consider them and seek independent advice if appropriate. The late service was not a determining factor at trial and was not directly at issue in the referred question.
The ruling answered the legal question only. The judgment states that the answer was without prejudice to the verdict or decision in the accused person’s favour; it did not reverse the directed acquittal.